Sunday, April 09, 2000, 2:15:35 PM, you wrote:
w> Imo, the higher content of minerals in organic foods does not
w> necessarily mean that more minerals were taken from the soil.
I would say they are and they aren't. They're being taken all right,
but that's due to the greater availability and assimilation of them
due to a more complete and balanced soil ecology; more and "better"
(compatible with the desired bio-processes) soil micro-organisms,
greater liberation, plants take in more and grow better so roots reach
further, accompanied by the "right" environment (friendly organisms /
conditions) etc. A bio-snowball effect.
We have *got* to get back to basics in the food chain and the only
lasting solution possible implies the need for a biologically based
economic model (Nutrition First) that would ground and balance (not
replace) the current macro-economic management principles and do so in
the light of the true costs of sustainable development (the kind of
work Redefining Progress is doing). Others are helping to point the
direction both research and the market should be taking.
*No* markets are totally free, they're all subject to governmental
controls, just as there no worlds without gravity. The important thing
here to is to determine which processes and organisms are being aided
or impeded by governmental intervention, in order to assure that it's
appropriate; that the greater public interest is being served and that
this occurs with no undue harm done to any minority.
A lot more data and support is needed and while there's no substitute
for this process, there's no stopping it either, if enough of the
right people get involved. And they are / will.
w> I could imagine that in organic farming the circumstances are more
w> plant-friendly and giving more opportunity to the seeds to realise
w> more of their potential. The minerals in the seed partly come from
w> soil I guess but there is a continuous truely alchemical process of
w> change happening in seeds and plants.
The processes involved are all definable - the no need to invoke
alchemy. More research is called for.
w> From what I heard human manure is very poor and should not be used
w> on the land and to my knowledge was also not used in ancient well
w> performing agricultural systems (but I am no expert on this last
I would think much depends on what those humans are eating and the
handling of the excrement (i.e. whether it's been composted and how,
along with what's it's mixed with).
John is never-the-less right of course regarding the basic principle
he mentions: You can't just keep taking from the soil without feeding
it, and the emphasis put on short term economic gain - the conversion
of directly life giving substances to an abstract exchange medium, i.e
cash or credit, *must* be addressed - the next step is what counts. In
other words, the recycling of both money and organic material must be
viewed as part of the same process necessary for healthy, balanced
growth in the context of a sustainable and diversified society.
John is a biologist, btw.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
w> John D'hondt wrote:
>> I can well believe this but one question springs immediately to
>> mind. How can one maintain mineral content in organic soils if the
>> first objective in (organic ) agriculture is to make a profit. The
>> farmer exports his produce and his minerals and he brings only
>> money back, which has a notoriously low mineral content. Farmers
>> may have to do better than that or sustainability may be no more
>> than a short lived fashion word. There are/were some countries were
>> farming has proven itself to be sustainable for at least a few
>> thousand years. But there the farmers brought the bodily wastes of
>> their customers back to the farm together with a little money.
>> Rather impossible to realize in this urbanized, efficient world?
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: wytze <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: <email@example.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 3:56 PM
>> Subject: Fw:higher nutrient levels in organic food
> Laurel Hopwood wrote: >
>> Journal of Applied Nutrition 1993; 45:35-39. > >
>> Organic foods vs. supermarket foods: Element levels > >
>> Over a 2 yr period, organically and conventionally grown apples,
>> potatoes, pears, wheat, and sweet corn were purchased in the
>> western suburbs of Chicago and analyzed for mineral content. Four
>> to 15 samples were taken for each food group. On a per-weight
>> basis, average levels of essential minerals were much higher in the
>> organically grown than in the conventionally grown food.
>> The organically grown food averaged 63% higher in calcium, 78%
>> higher in chromium, 73% higher in iron, 118% higher in
> magnesium, 178% higher in molybdenum, 91% higher in phosphorus,
>> 125% higher in potassium and 60% higher in zinc.
>> The organically raised food averaged 29% lower in mercury than the
>> conventionally raised food.
>> Laurel Hopwood ---- > >
>> For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the
>> Ban-GEF list, send email to Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com with HELP
>> in the SUBJECT line.
>> Search the archives (since '97) at
>> or go to a recent day's digest at
http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/00/. Updated weekly. ---- >
Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development,
a Mexican non-profit organization)
Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco; Loma Bonita, Oaxaca
& Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
Cuentas arregladas, amistades largas.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:07 EDT